I appreciate that it was of symbolic value only, and the text is
exhortative only, but Dimi and Karl, could you give us a bit of
background on the Google vote today.
It's always a bit difficult for outsiders to understand what's going on,
who's voted for what and why, because even the recorded roll-count votes
aren't published for a couple of days, and without really following the
dossier it takes a lot of work to unpack which amendment is which, and
which groups went which way over it.
The crude picture I've got from tweets here and there is that there was
an amendment to take out the break-up language from the resolution, with
(I think) the Liberals and some national delegations critical of the
measure, and the Greens seeing it as a distraction; or worse, as a
Trojan horse to force Google to have to index links even if it had to
pay for the privilege.
But these amendments were voted down roughly 3-to-1 -- presumably by
other groups who hadn't written them.
Both the Economist and policy tank EPIC had some things to say about why
it doesn't appear to make that much sense
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635000-european-moves-against-googl…
http://www.epicenternetwork.eu/briefings/unbundling-search-engines/
Even if Google's market share is massive, search is a very contestable
market, and there's very little consumer lock-in.
Google's Android can arguably be said to be pro-competitive, a defensive
effort that made sense for Google, to prevent its core offerings being
sidelined at the Operating System level.
So why did this motion get so many MEPs to pile in with their support?
Which were the groups that pushed it, and why?
And if, as some are saying, this is the publishers showing their
legislative power with a warning shot against those who seek a more
liberalised downstream copyright environment, is that analysis right;
and does it suggest that the forces of restriction have a strong hold on
a large swathe of MEPs ?
I'd be interested to know the team's analysis.
-- James.